Elections Test Question

If one is attempting to get elected in a political campaign, the most important characteristic that the candidate must put on display for the public is their image. Even if someone is not necessarily the most fitting of candidates, if they have a positive, progressive image then they are the ones that are going to be attracting the voters to their campaign. One aspect that will really help a candidate out in portraying this image is directly related to the amount of funding that they receive. In a campaign, they are numerous ways to raise money and some comes from Political Action Committees, which are directly connected to specific corporations, labor groups, and recognized political parties. All of these donated funds will either be categorized as hard or soft money. The hard money is from political donations that are regulated by law through the federal election commission, and is contributed directly to a candidate of a political party. While soft money is money contributed to the political party as a whole. It is money donated to political parties in a way that leaves contributors unregulated. All of these funds will go to the candidate’s campaign and they will use all of their money to try and promote themselves and attempt to improve the way that they are perceived by the public. That seems to be the prime goal for most of the people running for their respective political party, which is a political organization that typically seeks to attain and maintain political power within government. The reason that these candidates strive to get their name out there and have people be so familiar with their name is because that is what is going to get them into office realistically. As sad as it is, we are simply uninformed as a nation on these political issues that these candidates talk about. And a positive image will influence the voters and maybe even help improve that voter turnout in their favor if they have the support of the people. The voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast their opinions on a ballot at the elections. Typically the turnout in our country is low because the people believe that their vote won’t matter. But the problem is that there are thousands of others who walk around with this same mentality and if they all just went and voted, it would have a big impact on the outcome. Another reason why the voters just don’t seem to be there is because people are uneducated. Those who attempt educate themselves by watching the news are subject to some sort of media bias, which refers to the bias of journalists and news producers within the media, in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered. All of the bias put out there by these news stations, all stems back to this image that the candidates aim so hard to keep positive. A candidate can not necessarily promote himself in a positive way if he does not have the funds to do so. So getting back to the core question of whether these elections are democratic or not, I do not believe that they are simply because of the fact that the best candidate is not always getting chosen, the candidate that promotes himself in the most positive manner is usually the one that comes out on top.

Civil Liberties Test

A freedom is the human value, or situation, to act according to one's will without being held up by the power of others. While protection is defined as the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm. Ultimately, the protection of all citizens is the main goal and purpose of our government. But they must make sure that none of these acts of protection interfere with those freedoms that everybody must have. What happens when these two conflict with each other? There are four Supreme Court cases that I believe give a definitive answer to the question, what happens when freedoms and protections collide.
One case that really exemplifies our fourth amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, is the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. This was a case where a teacher walked by a bathroom and smelled smoke. Since T.L.O. was in that bathroom while the accusations of someone smoking were made, the school believed they had the right to search her, and ended up finding some illegal material on her. T.L.O. was trying to argue that this search violated the rights granted to her in the fourth amendment. When it made it to the Supreme Court, they ruled that since it was on school grounds, the school had probable cause and they can commence a search if it is done reasonably. So when the school was just trying to protect its students, they did the right thing by searching that girl and did not violate any of her freedoms.
When it comes to the 6th amendment, the case of Gideon v. Wainright really shows how our freedoms overcome our government’s protections. Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering and could not afford a lawyer and was told by the court that he did not need one. Ultimately, he was convicted of the crime and decided to take it further because he felt like the court was in violation of his rights granted to him under the 6th amendment and the court agreed with him. They felt that it was unconstitutional to not grant the accused with their own lawyer. His freedoms were cut short by not receiving his lawyer and did not receive a fair trial. Even though the court was trying to protect its citizens by taking a criminal off of the streets, that criminal is a citizen and must be granted the same exact rights as everybody else.
Looking at our freedoms and protections, there is a fine line between what happens to adults, and what happens to kids while in the classroom. The case of Bethel v. Fraser displays that fine line between what is and is not allowed in schools when it comes to expression and our first amendment. When Fraser got up in front of the whole school and delivered a speech that was vividly vulgar and inappropriate for a school setting, he probably was thinking that he was going to be protected by the first amendment, which grants the people with freedom of speech and expression. But the school felt otherwise and handed Fraser a two day suspension. Upon receiving this news, Fraser felt as though this punishment was completely unfair and wanted to challenge this ruling. In the end, it was determined that the school was right in imposing that suspension because of the fact that he crossed a certain threshold for some students by delivering that speech to the whole school. There is also this concept of in loco parentis that basically gives the school the same rights your parents have, while you are under their watch during the school day. So if the school felt that the speech deserved a two-day suspension the court could not help but agree.
Now to examine the other end of the spectrum, we must look at the freedoms and protections outside of school. With the case of Texas v. Johnson, where Johnson was a man in protest of the Reagan administration outside of the Dallas city hall, and he decided that he was going to set an American flag ablaze. The question that came up with this case is whether the desecration of an American flag a form of speech that is protected under the first amendment or not. In the end, it was decided that his actions fell into a category of expressive conduct and had a distinctive political nature. That is where the line is crossed between what is allowed in and outside of school. In the end, everybody is going to get their freedoms, but when the laws that protect us and solely aim at keeping our people save conflict with one of those freedoms, the protections are forced to come out on top, and over rule those much loved freedoms.